Which would work great, but IMO feels wrong. "Hey! It's free! It's open! It's... proxied? WTF?"
I don't know, this idea just doesn't have the ping of greatness.
It also doesn't--can't--do anything with roving clients who are using something other than HTTP. Considering the geekiness of today's typical wireless user, I would be surprised if this weren't a majority or at least a large minority.
...the Web is not the Internet. The Internet is not the Web. An IP client is not necessarily a web browser. Etc., etc., etc.
How do you propose to get this to work? You'd have to force port 80 connections to a proxy server, wouldn't you? Oy... some Internet access you got there.
Re:Science is biased and agenda-driven
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Case in point, when Carl Sagan says that there are probably billions of other life forms in the universe, is this based on scientific analysis of the factual evidence, or because of an eager, heartfelt desire to prove their existence?
It's based on an eager heartfelt desire to go find out!
That's what science is: "I don't know, let's find out!"
Second, once you're listed on a black hole, it can be hell to get off. My company had a secondary domain that was used for customer emails. It was, indeed, an open-relay due to misconfiguration. Eventually it got blackholed and our admins realized the mistake they'd made and set out to fix it. They did fix it eventually, but by that time the server was being slammed by spammers trying to use it as an open-relay. And on top of that trying to get the black hole list to remove the domain was difficult - it took well over two weeks, while the black hole-ing occurred in under a day. Eventually the entire domain was just dropped, since even with the open relay closed the spammers were still abusing the hell out of our pipe.
I'm sorry, but I'm really failing to see what part of this is not the spammers' fault... or yours. Certainly it wasn't the listing service "abusing the hell out of [your] pipe" or slamming your servers. And you say your admins "did fix it eventually." Was that in a day, a few weeks, a year, or what? A mere two-plus weeks to be taken off the blackhole advisory list sounds very reasonable under the circumstances.
Sounds like the blackhole service did you a favor. Certainly they limited the damage your company did to the rest of the Internet by passing along all that spam while the relay was open.
Then that's when you want SMTP AUTH or POP-before-SMTP, a pretty typical configuration on modern mail servers. Or use your dialup ISP's mail server as a smarthost--that's what it's for.
If you're right about that, then slashdot-type geeks will tend to keep one DRM-enabled computer for games and movies, and another DRM-disabled computer for hacking. The cost of doing so wouldn't be prohibitive these days.
I'm less concerned about that scenario than I am about CBDTPA-style edicts that would take away our right to use free software by force of law.
I suppose they're making a decent effort at reporting on this in an even-handed way, but the Globe missed two important points.
Palladium does nothing to protect against malicious code. It's the hardware equivalent of ActiveX "signing," which only verifies (somewhat) that the requested code comes from a known source. As we've seen already with ActiveX, code signing isn't a panacea; it can be subverted at many levels. On this the Globe is incorrect.
Privacy is only half of the downside concern. The other half is that DRM-enabled CPUs and system boards could easily become DRM-required devices at the whim of a major hardware or BIOS vendor. On this the Globe just failed to notice the issue, or to mention it.
Have you noticed how many of the Linux (and FreeBSD, etc.) "vulnerabilities" are theoretical attacks that are fixed long before any known exploits occur?
And how often does that happen with closed source software?
...there is oh, I dunno 100 games per team in the regular season.
A hundred sixty-two. (Which only reinforces your point.)
American football has maybe a fifth of that...
...or a tenth.
Point well taken, but as the other dude says, baseball is the way it is. Trying to make it into a weekend spectacle sport will just ruin it. (Heck, I'm still annoyed over the designated hitter rule. Talk about a kludge!)
...but you are not going to give up your friends, family, and social life just so he doesn't have to hire enough people to do the job....
Which reminds me. Aren't there supposed to be still a lot of unemployed programmers in the US? (FX: Everybody nods.) So shouldn't it be relatively cheap/easy for the boss to increase the programming staff a little at a time over the next year or two?
I know all about Brooks' Law; this won't help your immediate "crunch" situation. But going forward with new projects you need the right number of highly qualified programmers--why not start as soon as possible?
Exactly. They're buying your work but they're also buying your "buy-in." They want to know you won't have a higher-priority project interfering with theirs, and they do that by paying you enough to not have to go looking for the next project right away.
In my experience the big corporations don't want to pay $500 or $2500 for software because they're going to want some hand-holding, repeated site visits for training and troubleshooting--a lot of extra time above and beyond cranking out the code. They may not come out and say it, but they know you can't afford to do much hand-holding at those prices.
In a way you could say the $500 bid is for shoddy work, but they look at it more as paying $500 for a raw pile of bits that they can't use without some bright geek hanging around for comfort. Or fine-tuning.
You're giving mere examples of the application of Constitutional protections, and then rhetorically eliding them into defining the limits of those protections.
For one thing, the 4th doesn't just apply to police searches of one's home. Hundreds of appeals court rulings can be cited. Likewise down the list of your other claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Work something out?
Look, the client has the money. It may be tied up in hardware or office equipment that they'll have to sell at a loss, but they have the money.
I want to know when it happened that geeks turned into happy, generous bankers.
They're avoiding paying the guy because they can. This is like "working something out" with a mugger.
Yeah, except for the two facts you ignored in the post (all of it!) to which you were ostensibly responding.
Troll.
But then you're getting farther and farther away from having a nice open network that people can casually drop in and out of.
Sure it would work.
Which would work great, but IMO feels wrong. "Hey! It's free! It's open! It's... proxied? WTF?"
I don't know, this idea just doesn't have the ping of greatness.
It also doesn't--can't--do anything with roving clients who are using something other than HTTP. Considering the geekiness of today's typical wireless user, I would be surprised if this weren't a majority or at least a large minority.
How do you propose to get this to work? You'd have to force port 80 connections to a proxy server, wouldn't you? Oy... some Internet access you got there.
It's based on an eager heartfelt desire to go find out!
That's what science is: "I don't know, let's find out!"
No.
Or perhaps the spammers are probing for open relays all the damn time and it's a good thing the white-hat advisory service spotted it first?
It's not like security through obscurity really works when all you have to do is count from 1 to 2**32.
I'm sorry, but I'm really failing to see what part of this is not the spammers' fault... or yours. Certainly it wasn't the listing service "abusing the hell out of [your] pipe" or slamming your servers. And you say your admins "did fix it eventually." Was that in a day, a few weeks, a year, or what? A mere two-plus weeks to be taken off the blackhole advisory list sounds very reasonable under the circumstances.
Sounds like the blackhole service did you a favor. Certainly they limited the damage your company did to the rest of the Internet by passing along all that spam while the relay was open.
Then that's when you want SMTP AUTH or POP-before-SMTP, a pretty typical configuration on modern mail servers. Or use your dialup ISP's mail server as a smarthost--that's what it's for.
Yeah! Don't misunderestimate the value of authentification!
Uh, yeah, that would be my second paragraph.
If you're right about that, then slashdot-type geeks will tend to keep one DRM-enabled computer for games and movies, and another DRM-disabled computer for hacking. The cost of doing so wouldn't be prohibitive these days.
I'm less concerned about that scenario than I am about CBDTPA-style edicts that would take away our right to use free software by force of law.
I suppose they're making a decent effort at reporting on this in an even-handed way, but the Globe missed two important points.
Have you noticed how many of the Linux (and FreeBSD, etc.) "vulnerabilities" are theoretical attacks that are fixed long before any known exploits occur?
And how often does that happen with closed source software?
You must be one of those read-the-article-for-comprehension freaks I keep hearing about on /.
I've been following the anti-spam newsgroups and organizations for something like five years now, and I've never heard of banthespam.com before now.
Are they for real or what?
A hundred sixty-two. (Which only reinforces your point.)
Point well taken, but as the other dude says, baseball is the way it is. Trying to make it into a weekend spectacle sport will just ruin it. (Heck, I'm still annoyed over the designated hitter rule. Talk about a kludge!)
Which reminds me. Aren't there supposed to be still a lot of unemployed programmers in the US? (FX: Everybody nods.) So shouldn't it be relatively cheap/easy for the boss to increase the programming staff a little at a time over the next year or two?
I know all about Brooks' Law; this won't help your immediate "crunch" situation. But going forward with new projects you need the right number of highly qualified programmers--why not start as soon as possible?
The next time I see a post like this and have any mod points, I'm calling it a Troll.
It's not as though this hasn't been answered over and over and over in every single Microsoft story.
It's patently obvious flamebait.
Well, the change is definitely not going to happen unless someone starts advocating it. It might as well be Bruce Perens to get the ball rolling.
Exactly. They're buying your work but they're also buying your "buy-in." They want to know you won't have a higher-priority project interfering with theirs, and they do that by paying you enough to not have to go looking for the next project right away.
In my experience the big corporations don't want to pay $500 or $2500 for software because they're going to want some hand-holding, repeated site visits for training and troubleshooting--a lot of extra time above and beyond cranking out the code. They may not come out and say it, but they know you can't afford to do much hand-holding at those prices.
In a way you could say the $500 bid is for shoddy work, but they look at it more as paying $500 for a raw pile of bits that they can't use without some bright geek hanging around for comfort. Or fine-tuning.
You're giving mere examples of the application of Constitutional protections, and then rhetorically eliding them into defining the limits of those protections.
For one thing, the 4th doesn't just apply to police searches of one's home. Hundreds of appeals court rulings can be cited. Likewise down the list of your other claims.
With all the cash holdings, you don't have to ask why they called themselves "Liquid."